Ms Ruth Taillon:

Good morning, everybody. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to it today on behalf of the Centre for Cross Border Studies. The centre was established in 1999, specifically in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, with the aim of providing a non-governmental vehicle to support and promote cross-Border co-operation. Today's submission is based on our experience of promoting and supporting cross-Border co-operation both on this island but increasingly, and more recently, in Europe as well. I hope Members will have more details about the centre and our longer presentation in their information packs. Our comments are based on that.

I shall commence by saying that we get core funding from the Irish Government through the Department of Education and Skills which is an essential element of our sustainability. It is very important for us to acknowledge that assistance here and outline that we are very grateful. Like so many others recently, our primary income has been limited to time-limited project funding from Europe.

While working with other cross-border regions has been increasingly important for us, the context of the centre's work has always been, first and foremost, Strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement. Thus, we are very conscious that we are now 16 years on and it is 20 years since the ceasefires. We are also very conscious of the fact that only a minority of peace agreements survive more than a decade and in the absence of comprehensive efforts to transcend social divisions, armed conflicts frequently reoccur. In recent years we have seen an escalation in what is known as post-conflict violence, in particular sectarian, racist and other hate crimes and also other types of crimes, anti-social behaviour and crimes within communities. The residual paramilitary violence also provides a portent of how truly terrible a resurgence in politically-motivated conflict will be if the fragile political structures atrophy or break down. The dangers of allowing the agreement to become unravelled, or for some elements to be allowed to wither away, should be clear to all of us. Therefore, it was reassuring that the Tánaiste, in his remarks at the launch of the Government's reconciliation fund strategy, recognised the corrosive effect that legacy issues continue to have over the daily lives of people on the island, and the responsibilities of both Governments towards finding political and societal mechanisms to deal with these legacy issues.

Our focus is on cross-Border co-operation. The centre works very closely with the North-South Ministerial Council's joint secretariat and we recognise that co-operation at that level has been very effectively embedded. We would like to see co-operation extended and deepened. In that sense we are somewhat disappointed that there has been very little visible progress on the review for additional cross-Border bodies in areas of co-operation. We think it would help to build greater political endorsement for the bodies if a more proactive approach was taken to ensure that the benefits of their work was better understood by the voting public in both jurisdictions. This could be done through more robust communication strategies. We also suggest it could be done by commissioning social and economic impact evaluations in order to provide a firm evidence base to support the case for continued public investment in the North-South bodies.

Below that level, however, cross-Border co-operation is not so well embedded. Cross-Border co-operation among other public bodies, and between public bodies and civic society, is still fragmented and weakly institutionalised. Since the economic crisis of 2008, austerity has to some extent provided a rationale for a de-prioritisation of cross-Border co-operation.

The potential efficiencies of delivering public services on a cross-Border or all-island basis should be starkly obvious to anyone. However, cross-Border co-operation requires capacity, skills and resources and, even more importantly, it requires leadership and clear and unambiguous direction from policy-makers.

Since the demise of the Common Chapter the limited, but nevertheless important, references to cross-Border co-operation have dwindled and all but disappeared from major policy documents. Unless there is a clear policy imperative supported by resources, and it is made clear to civil servants and other public officials that it is part of their job, even the most motivated people will find that cross-Border co-operation has become an unaffordable luxury.

The European PEACE and INTERREG programmes, in particular, have made a huge contribution to normalising cross-Border co-operation networks among local authorities, public agencies and community and voluntary organisations. The PEACE programme, in particular, is well recognised as having helped to sustain the peace process at times when formal structures were stalled or suspended.

Perhaps one of the most valuable outcomes of the EU cross-Border programmes has been the facilitation of cross-Border networks. The requirement, built into the programmes for partnership working, has effected a real change in the culture for civil society organisations and gave them new access to decision-making. Importantly, it also made a major contribution to encouraging active citizenship. However, the fact remains that cross-Border co-operation in Ireland has been highly dependent upon the EU programmes called PEACE and INTERREG. The only other significant sources of public funding for cross-Border co-operation has been EU and American funding through the International Fund for Ireland, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's reconciliation fund. Therefore, we welcome the commitment given in the new strategy for the reconciliation fund to building a strong civil society and the explicit inclusion in the fund's criteria of support to projects that build North-South links.

As the strategy states, the significant progress made since the Good Friday Agreement cannot be taken for grant and it is essential that cross-Border co-operation be mainstreamed in public policy and budget lines on both sides of the Border.

The draft PEACE and INTERREG programme documents are now out for consultation.

The focus of the programmes is becoming increasingly narrow and it is becoming less accessible not just for civil society organisations but also for local government.

We are concerned and very disappointed that there is no specific allocation within the proposed PEACE IV programme for cross-Border projects. It is essential that a specific proportion - we recommend 15% as in the PEACE I and PEACE II programmes - be ring-fenced for cross-Border projects.

Similarly, there are changes to the planned match funding allocations and the two Governments allocation will now be reduced to 15% from the previous 25%, with projects now expected to find the other 15% from other sources which again will be fine for the larger statutory projects. However, it is essential that the reduction in the national contribution to the 2014-20 programmes does not simply revert into central Government funds.

Cross-Border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional resources. We propose that the two Governments establish a new cross-Border funding programme targeted at civil society. We recommend that approximately €40 million over seven years would be a reasonable amount.

In 2012, the centre published a major study on the Border region economy. More recently, we commissioned and published additional studies on the theme - towards a Border development zone. Since then we have been supporting a Border development zone steering committee chaired by Mr. Padraic White, involving cross-Border local authority networks, the Border Regional Authority, IBEC and InterTradeIreland.

The Border region continues to be characterised by multiple disadvantages relative to the rest of the island and the UK and continues to lag behind the EU average on a number of social and economic indictors. The European Union has introduced a new mechanism – integrated territorial investment – specifically intended to address such social and economic disparities and promote territorial cohesion, that is, to bring regions such as the Border region closer to the levels of prosperity and development of more affluent regions. The centre strongly supports the concept of integrated territorial investment for the Border region. This would ensure that not only the smaller dedicated cross-Border funds but also the main European Regional Development Funds, European Social Funds and other mainstream funding programmes in both jurisdictions would prioritise the Border region.

Cross-Border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional resources and, most important, it needs a supportive policy framework. There has not been an overarching and strategic framework to give coherence to the many valuable cross-Border initiatives that have been implemented in the past two decades. Too often, the European Union programmes have compensated for a lack of leadership and investment rather than complementing a strategic cross-Border intervention. Sustainable peace and development on the island requires new ways of thinking and new ways of doing business and that means public officials and representatives and the social partners thinking and working beyond their traditional jurisdictions.

We recommend that there is a need for a new common chapter explicitly incorporating an imperative for cross-Border co-operation in public policies and development strategies in both jurisdictions. A new cross-Border funding programme should be established focused on civil society projects, with a minimum investment of €40 million over seven years. A specific proportion - 15% - of the PEACE IV programme should be ring-fenced for cross-Border projects and an integrated territorial investment strategy for the Border region should be developed, targeting the Structural Funds in both jurisdictions and combined with the European territorial co-operation programmes and national government contributions. We recognise that those recommendations are very ambitious but believe that is what is needed to make a real difference in terms of sustaining cross-Border co-operation over the next two decades.